ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2025
Family physicians have greater ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context: A nationwide cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Competency List for General Practitioners/Family Physicians Providing Care for Dual-Location Residents: Expert Consensus via the Delphi Technique.Journal of general and family medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Workplace Social Capital between the Pre- and Post-Restriction Eras of Physician Working Hours: A Nationwide Repeated Cross-Sectional Study.JMA journal · 2026Article
- Managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a mixed-methods study of family physicians' experiences in Türkiye.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Understanding clinical ambiguity in family medicine: Implications for training and global practice.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- Do family physicians develop ambiguity tolerance as they gain experience? A multicenter cross-sectional study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- Family physicians have greater ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context: A nationwide cross-sectional study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context is increasingly recognized as essential for physicians to work as professionals. However, the relationship between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context has been understudied. Here, we investigated the association between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context, focusing on differences between family physicians (FPs) and non-FPs. Methods: We performed a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan. We asked FPs from 14 family medicine residency programs across Japan and non-FPs from monitors of an internet survey company in Japan to participate in the study. We assessed their tolerance for ambiguity using the Japanese version of the Tolerance for Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (J-TAMSAD) scale. Results: In total, 388 physicians (178 FPs and 210 non-FPs) completed our anonymous online survey and were included in the analysis. After adjustment for possible confounders (gender and postgraduate years), FPs had higher J-TAMSAD scale scores than internists/pediatricians, surgeons, and physicians with other specialties, meaning that FPs had greater ambiguity tolerance. Conclusions: This study reveals that FPs had greater tolerance for ambiguity in the clinical context than non-FPs. Our findings suggest that there may be a need to increase non-FP's tolerance for ambiguity specific to the clinical context through educational interventions, since ambiguity is inherent and growing in medicine today. FPs and non-FPs should work together to complement each other's strengths, rather than simply improving the training of non-FPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.